click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
limited. a duty for liberty and right to keep me free and uphold the rule of law to ensure the system if we suffer injury in the physical sense or through fraud. the government can't keep us safe and it's so limited they should not be telling me that i have to buy health insurance or i will get taxed more. what should the role of government be in your life we are asking you in this morning's journal. it states in the constitution of the federal government is to do. 18 enumerations, the rest are reserved for the state's and the people. next call, jeff in texas. good morning to you, sir. >> caller: that would be kevin in washington. >> host: good morning. you are on the air. go ahead. >> caller: i believe that if the proper role of the federal government is to protect individual liberties we are supposed to have rules against that, against fraud, against the injured. but the problem is the federal government has gone way beyond that. it seems like they want to redistribute what people have gained through their liberties and freedoms and once you do that, you are violating people's liber
's always problems. i mean, as i tell my students in constitutional law, this country is a work in progress. sometimes the government's going to go too far, and we need to rein them in. i'm not in favor of excessive government involvement in my life. um, and sometimes private industry will go too far in terms of wanting to make it all about how much profit they make, and we'll rein them in because health care is not something that should be guided solely by the bottom line. so i think the government has a role, and i think we have to keep a catch -- watchdog, citizens' deal on how much of a role we give them. >> i would add to that that birth control access should be a nonpartisan issue. as many of you probably know, president nixon signed title x family planning funding into law. it was a republican value for lesser government intrusion in our lives and good fiscal conservativism. $1 invested saves $4 in unnecessary costs. and as we know today, social ideology is forcing some of our politicians to be more socially conservative than fiscally responsible. because they recognize this is just
might address that gap. [laughter] there are six products of harvard law school and three products of yale law school on the supreme court. there are apparently no other law schools in the united states. [laughter] besides those two. no, it is a bizarre and unfortunately fact, i think. but those are, i hope, interesting facts about the supreme court. but frankly, i don't think they're very important. here's an important fact. about the supreme court. there are five republicans and four democrats. i will speak for somewhat longer, but this is basically all you need to know. [laughter] if be there's a takeaway here, i have gotten to the point early. there are five republicans and four democrats, and that really tells you much of what you need to know. and it is true that the justices wear robes because they're supposed to look all alike, and they're supposed to look, you know, it's supposed to give the perception that they're all pretty much the same, but just as on the other side of first street the united states congress is deeply divided according to party, so is the united states
has just enumerated, but also because the world has changed around us. in part because the laws our policy. we spent an awful lot of time, effort and money after world war ii creating an international system, economic system in particular to stimulate the growth in the rest of the world. so, this is the success of the policy of several decades that has made us relatively less strong in terms of disposable cash and disposable incentives to get to the behavior that we want to see. militarily, we surely are as strong as we have ever been, but we live in a world that has a number of nuclear powers and we still live in the world before 1957 that had not. so, other than us. you know, to me it hardly even seems worth debating this is a different world. >> i was told we have to debate. [inaudible] the decline is the wrong word. i think the world is getting more crowded. they are growing faster and in economic terms the u.s. will have the west shared wealth for the years ahead but there isn't a country by the way that is as jessica said that is a story of american success. it's for 60 years
international order that upholds the rule of law, of open access to all domains, and of the peaceful resolution of disputes. we seek a peaceful asia-pacific region where all the states of the region, all of them, can enjoy the benefits of security and continue to prosper just as they have for almost 70 years, since the valiant efforts of the brave men and women who fought so courageously in world war ii. indeed, part of the reason states in the region have been able to prosper has been due to our military presence. thanks to that historic security, states in the region have had the freedom to choose and forge their own economic and political futures. the stability provided an important measure by the united states military presence in the region helped, first, japan and south korea to rise and prosper, then southeast asia to rise and prosper, and now, yes, china and in a different way, india, to rise and prosper. working with all of them, we intend to continue to play that positive, pivotal stabilizing role. that's what the rebalance is all about. to those who ask whether we'll be able to deliv
and groups of men. rather than as the law holds right now, men and women in comparable jobs in the same job. so what they're trying to do is have equal pay for equal work, not equal pay for equal work, which is two very different things. there's no reason why groups of women and groups of men in the same firm should be paid the same if they have radically different jobs. look at exxon, for example, that is a group of men and oil drilling activities. it's a dirty dangerous job. you could not get me to do. you have to pay people a lot to risked their lives doing that kind of work. exxon has a group of women in communications, assistant jobs, publications. there's no reason these two groups should be necessarily paid the same. but the paycheck benefit would be moving toward requiring firms to pay men and women the same, even if they're in very different jobs. that is not paycheck fairness. that's communism. >> diana furchtgott-roth, your book, women's figures, was there a time when women were treated unfairly in the work place? >> there certainly was. there were times in the 1950s and 1960s, y
in another country because of the environmental laws or other laws are more supportive of the needs of their businesses and deliver product to market. so with that, then we are looking at another set of tensions. we are expecting the global supply chain to be available at all times. to enable from an ict perspective our confidentiality of the businesses and then we're demanding those products maintain their integrity. it's no mistake that i'm using the confidencialty integrity and available of information assurance, that's in many ways we're talking about the three tenants of information assurance we're not worried about the integrity of the products coming in to the global supply chain that might comprise the businesses or confidentiality so software behind the actual stuff. the products are being built, delivered maintains, upgraded all around the world and they are vulnerable to opponents who wish it harm. to manipulate the product through the design through the life cycle. and adversaries that may have access to those particular networks or designed to have accessn'ting access t
negate some of the new laws that are intended to require photo i.d.s? >> first observation is in terms of that case in maryland, that was one misguided example where it never should've happened. the race wasn't that close so it was a huge mistake by that individual and he paid for it with time in prison. in terms of your concern about voter i.d., having to show i.d., i live in virginia and i just got my voter card and did they allow anything like a utility bill or anything like that? it's a lot easier to vote in america than to get on an airplane so if you're worried about fraud, i think that -- these are feasible requirements. >> i guess in terms of polling, we tried to pull a registered voter list so there are registered voters presumably and then in elections we also try to sample people who not only register but have voted in past elections. [inaudible] how you account for that? >> our caller has asked about the voter i.d.. not a lot you can do but some of these places as you have pointed out, they have been thrown out or if they have been basically put aside for this election for
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8